

TF 725 
! .N5 H3 
Copy 1 



RAPID TRANSIT IN NEW YORK. 


OPEN LETTER 


TO 


HON. ABRAM S. HEWITT, 


* 


ON THE VARIOUS MOTIVE POWER SYSTEMS PROPOSED TOR 
THE OPERATION OF RAPID TRANSIT TINES 
IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 


AIvSO, 


A REPRINT OF DISCUSSION IN THE “STREET RAILWAY GAZETTE,” 
AND “STREET RAILWAY REVIEW,” OF CHICAGO, ON 
THE RELATIVE COST OF INSTALLATION AND 
OPERATION OF LINES OPERATED BY 

steam, electricity, AND 

COMPRESSED AIR. 


) ) 


BY HERMAN HAUPT, C. E., 


Washington, D. C. 


BYRON S. ADAMS, PRIN 























Rapid Transit in New York. 


An Open Letter to Hon. Abram S. Hewitt. 


Sir : 

My attention has been directed to an article on rapid 
transit in New York published in the “ Herald ” of November 
18 th, which professes to give the results of interviews with 
prominent citizens as to the best power to be used in the 
operation of the proposed rapid-transit lines in your city. 

The great interest that you have taken in this question, 
your familiarity with proposed plans of operative, and with 
the physical laws upon which their success depends, has in¬ 
duced me to address to you this communication in which an 
attempt will be made to show the utter impracticability of 
some of the suggestions that have been made, and the rela¬ 
tive economy and efficiency of such other systems as may be 
regarded as practicable, although not equally meritorious. 

Hot water, carbonic acid, ammonia, gas, and storage- 
battery, have all been proposed as sources of motive power, 
but none of them are available as will be briefly explained. 

The remaining competitors for favor, must be steam, cable, 
electricity, and compressed air. 

This paper must necessarily be brief. I propose simply to 
state conclusions. To enunciate the thermodynamic and 
other physical laws involved in the discussion of these sub¬ 
jects, and demonstrate the soundness of the conclusions 
reached would require a volume. Those upon whom the 
decision must rest, will, if wise, employ disinterested and 
competent experts to investigate the merits of each and 
every proposed system, and report facts, not theories, or con- 




2 


jectures. Much information in regard to motors is given in 
a recent publication by Henry Cary Baird of Philadelphia, 
of which you have a copy, but an abstract of results can be 
here given, having reference to the suggestions of the “Herald” 
article above referred to. 

Hot Water Motors. 

Water possesses greater capacity for heat than any other 
substance, in consequence of which attempts have been 
made to store up heat for motive power at very high tem¬ 
perature, and allow the water to be expanded into steam by 
the reduction of pressure in the motor cylinders. 

It is simply astonishing that nearly all who have figured 
upon the results of this application have failed to recognize 
the fact, that in passing from water into steam nearly one 
thousand units of heat become latent, and this abstraction of 
heat so rapidly reduces the temperature of the remaining 
water that only a comparatively small portion can be con¬ 
verted into steam before the temperature and pressure are so 
far reduced as to render it impossible to operate the motor. 

In a recent example, submitted to the writer, it was cal¬ 
culated that if 600 pounds of water w r ere heated to a high 
temperature of 480° in a strong tank, under a pressure of 
600 pounds per square inch, only 140 pounds could be util¬ 
ized until the pressure would fall to 60 pounds, and the 
quantity of coal required to raise the water to a temperature 
of 480° would be much more than would be required to pro¬ 
duce the steam direct as in a locomotive. 

This hot water idea is by no means new. A number of 
hot w r ater or fireless locomotives were constructed in New 
Orleans twenty-five years ago by a company of which Gen¬ 
eral Beauregard was president, and run between that city 
and Lake Pontchartrain, but were abandoned after long 
trial, and horse-power substituted. 


3 


In a recent discussion of the hot-water engine in an en¬ 
gineering society, none of the members who participated 
therein appear to have recognized the fact of the great loss 
of sensible heat and power by the conversion of water into 
steam. 

Unless a fire-box be added to generate steam by the aid 
of fuel a hot-water engine can have only a very short run, 
but if fuel is used it becomes a very poor steam-locomotive. 

Carbonic Acid Motors. 

The attempt to use these motors is an illustration of the 
extreme gullibility of capitalists, who have but limited knowl¬ 
edge of physical laws and are imposed upon by confident 
and persistent inventors. With the exception of the Keely 
motor, no more visionary scheme than this has been pre¬ 
sented to a credulous public. 

The claim that a pressure of 5,000 pounds per square 
inch can be produced by the use of carbonic acid is fasci¬ 
nating to the ignorant. It is true that 5,000 pounds and 
more can be produced by heating carbonic acid in tubes or 
close and strong tanks, but such pressure cannot possibly be 
utilized for propulsion. The fact has been fully demon¬ 
strated by the tests of Col. Beaumont in England, and by 
Hardie in this country, that very high pressures cannot be 
used to any advantage expansively in motor cylinders, and 
that when air was used in compound engines at 1,000 pounds 
pressure, and also at 200 pounds, the same weight of air 
would run the motor to the same distance. The most eco¬ 
nomical pressure to be used in the cylinder has been found 
to be about 125 to 150 pounds. 

If cold air at high pressure, which does not condense, can¬ 
not be economically used in the motor cylinders, certainly no 
other elastic fluid which derives its pressure from the appli¬ 
cation of heat can be employed with better prospect of sue- 


4 


cess. Steam could be superheated as well as carbonic acid 
to almost any temperature and pressure, and so also could 
air, but a high heat would burn out the lubricants and de¬ 
stroy the cylinders ; there would be great loss from radiation 
and the expansion in the cylinders would result in such 
rapid cooling as to very quickly absorb the pressure secured 
by the application of heat. 

If carbonic acid could be furnished for nothing it would 
not pay to use it, but it is expensive. If exhausted after 
doing its work, there would be great waste, and if attempted 
to be condensed, the apparatus would be too complicated for 
a motor. 

Carbonic acid is a liquid at a temperature of 32 degrees, 
under a pressure of 38 J atmospheres, or 577 pounds, conse¬ 
quently it is not possible to secure pressures of 5,000 to 
10,000 pounds, except by the application of heat, and even 
if such pressures could be secured, as can be done with air, 
without high temperature, such pressure would be absolutely 
of no practical use and could not be applied to any motor. 
Pressures secured by the application of heat are lost in cool¬ 
ing. Air, on the contrary, does not condense and retains its 
pressure until used. 

Ammonia Motors. 

Ammonia possesses very remarkable properties. At ordi¬ 
nary temperature it is a permanent gas giving a pressure of 
100 pounds to the square inch at 60° Fahrenheit, while 
water to give an equivalent pressure must be heated to 
325°. 

Ammonia liquefies at ordinary temperature under a press¬ 
ure of 17 a.tmosphere or 250 pounds per square inch, and 
by cold alone at 40° below zero. 

At the temperature of freezing, water will absorb more 
than a thousand times its volume. 


5 


The remarkable properties of ammonia and the low tem¬ 
perature at which a high pressure can be secured, indicate 
the probability and almost certainty of a wide and profitable 
field for ammonia engines for stationary, and probably also 
for marine purposes. Theory confirms the claim of a say¬ 
ing of 50 per cent, in fuel in stationary engines, and direct 
tests with the Campbell engine have proven that this claim 
is well founded, but as the ammonia, after performing its work 
in the cylinders, must be absorbed by cold water and re¬ 
distilled, and as distilling apparatus cannot be applied with 
advantage to a traveling motor, its proper field of application 
is apparently to stationary and marine engines. Securing 
in the latter probably a great economy of space by the use 
of petroleum fuel. 

Ammonia motors invented by Dr. Emile Lamm were run 
in New Orleans in 1871, and favorably reported upon by a 
committee, of which Gen. Beauregard was chairman, but these 
motors were soon abandoned in favor of the hot-water motors, 
which were found to be, in the language of Gen. Beauregard 
“ cheaper and less troublesome ” As hot water cannot compare 
favorably with steam, no more space will be here devoted to 
a consideration of ammonia motors. 

Gas Motors. 

The best type of gas-motor known to the writer is the 
Connolly. The power * was furnished by the vapor of 
naphtha exploded with admixture of air in a cylinder sur¬ 
rounded by a water-jacket. The water was warmed by the 
combustion of the naphtha and its circulation around the 
tank furnished the vapor required by the engine. The cost 
of fuel was very low and there were many ingenious me¬ 
chanical devices in the construction of the motor. A serious 
objection was the necessity for keeping the engine running 
and out of gear while the motor was standing, so that the 


6 


temperature, for the evaporation of the naphtha could be 
maintained and avoid delays in starting. Twenty of these 
motors were ordered for street service in Chicago, hut after 
several explosions, the last of which set fire to the car-house, 
they were abandoned. 

Gas, compressed into reservoirs, would avoid some of the 
objections to naphtha,' but would be more expensive. 

It has never been seriously proposed to use gas-engines 
for the operation of rapid-transit lines in New York. There 
is not sufficient information to condemn them as entirely 
impracticable, and on the other hand, it would require a very 
careful investigation before it could be decided that they 
could be adapted to this service. The writer is not aware 
that any investigation by competent experts has ever been 
made to determine whether gas-engines would meet all the 
requirements of rapid-transit service in great cities, and it 
would not be well to try experiments on a large scale when 
other systems known to be successful, and probably quite as 
economical, can be adopted without risk of failure. 

Storage Batteries. 

Sanguine expectations of success have been entertained in 
the use of storage-batteries. The importance of independ¬ 
ent motors not subject to derangement by accident, or failure 
at a central station has long been appreciated, but unfortu¬ 
nately success has not as yet rewarded efforts. In the city 
of Washington it is said that several hundred thousand 
dollars have been fruitlessly expended on storage-battery 
experiments. 

As it is not probable that the idea of using storage-bat¬ 
teries for rapid transit in New York has been seriously en¬ 
tertained by any one, it would he useless to waste time in 
occupying space by the further consideration of this subject. 

There are other schemes to which it is scarcely necessary 


7 


to refer, as there is no probability that they will be seriously 
considered, such as Brunei’s old atmospheric railway, which 
has recently been revived under a new name and in a more 
objectionable form. The choice of motive power must there¬ 
fore lie between steam, cable, electricity, and compressed air. 

Steam. 

Steam requires less expenditure for plant than any other 
system, and taking interest, depreciation, and repairs into 
consideration is cheaper than any other, air excepted. There 
is no experiment about steam. We are familiar with the 
locomotive, and know what it will do and what it will cost. 
Notwithstanding the absurd claim for electrical railroads 
running trains at a speed of 100 miles per hour over ex¬ 
tended lines of hundreds of miles, it is not probable that 
prudent investors will soon contribute capital to such pro¬ 
jected lines or that for such purposes steam will be super¬ 
seded. 

Where steam must be used to generate electricity with 
the losses in transmission from the prim mover or the dyna¬ 
mos, from the dynamos to the conductors, and from the con¬ 
ductors to the motors, with the greatly increased cost of 
plant and of maintenance, it will be found preferable for 
all rural and transcontinental lines to use steam directly as a 
source of power, but as the “ Herald ” says, for underground 
travel in New York, “ steam is, in the opinion of a great 
majority, out of the question, as passengers would never 
stand the heat, smoke, and gas.” 

Cable. 

It is conceded that the cable system will not do, as it is 
both uncertain and dangerous. “ The terrible and varying 
“ strain is likely to part the cable and stop the entire traffic 
“ of the line, then there is danger of loose strands of wire 


8 


“ fouling with the grip, and causing a runaway train, which 
“ may play havoc. Every engine should have its own motor, 
“ and one that is not an experiment, but a tried one that 
“ does its work. The electric motor fills the bill exactly 
“ and nothing else aprroacbes it. There is now little diffi- 
“ culty in operating these motors from a central station, and 
“ when the system is used under-ground the few difficulties 
“ will be overcome. The South London under-ground road 
“ is run by the trolley system and gives complete satisfac- 
“ tion.” 

The above is a quotation from the “Herald” article, and the 
statements in regard to the cable are by no means overdrawn 
as experience in Chicago and other cities fully confirms, so 
that the cable may be excluded, and the only remaining 
competitors will be the trolley and compressed air. 

Electricity. 

The trolle}^ does not fulfill the condition that “ every 
engine should have its own motor,” if by this is meant the 
independent motors that the storage-battery was expected 
to furnish. On the contrary, every motor on the line is 
tied to the central station, and is as much dependent upon 
it as the cable lines. Every one is familiar with the facts of 
the blockades caused by electric storms, of shocks by live 
wires, of conflagrations caused by crossing telegraph and 
telephone wires, of heavy fire losses caused by the obstruc¬ 
tions to the free use of apparatus, of the destruction of gas 
and water-pipes by electrolysis, and the poles and wires 
are tolerated only because regarded as a necessary evil. It 
is not correct either to assert that the South London under¬ 
ground road has been a success. This is an electric sub¬ 
way or tunnel route, known as the Greathead System. It 
is a mere toy. It has, as its complete equipment, 36 cars 
and 14 engines. It carried during the fiscal year of 1891 


9 


the insignificant number of 5,161,398 passengers. It earned 
no dividends. Its total paid-up capital raised by loan and 
debenture stock was 810,718 pounds for three miles of road, 
or $1,351,196 per mile. The system is neither efficient nor 
cheap. 

Rapid transit is impossible on any road, or in any local¬ 
ity, where there are numerous stops per mile. On the Third 
Avenue Railroad the average is 3.06 stops per mile, and the 
schedule speed, which is a maximum with safety, is only 
11.6 miles per hour. To attain an average of 20 miles per 
hour, there must be few stops, and this requires separate 
tracks for through and local traffic. To obtain reliable 
data on which to base estimates of the cost of installation 
and of operation of an electric road, such as would be re¬ 
quired for rapid transit in New York, from South Ferry to 
the Yonkers’ Line, information was sought from officers of 
the General Electric Co., the problem submitted being: 
Given a double-track road twenty miles long, with trains 
similar to present elevated trains, running at one-minute 
intervals, and 20 miles per hour, or 2 hours for the round 
trip, how many power stations would be required, where 
should the stations be located with reference to the termini, 
what power would be required at stations, and what the cost 
in detail of the installation ? The inquirer was referred to 
Mr. Baker who had charge of the construction and installa¬ 
tion of the Intramural Railroad at the World’s Fair, who 
kindly answered all questions and furnished the informa¬ 
tion desired. 

Based on the figures thus obtained, an estimate was made 
of the cost of the electrical installation of such a line which 
gave $8,960,000, or fifteen times as much as with steam 
locomotives, and five times as great as w T ith compressed air. 

In a round trip of two hours, one hundred and twenty 
trains will have covered 4,800 miles, and the cost of fuel in 


10 


performing this work by the different systems was electricity 
$575, steam $384, and compressed air, $168. 

This estimate was fairly made and gave the exact results 
from the figures furnished, but it seemed excessive, so far as 
applied to the cost of electrical installation, and the editor of 
one of the technical magazines submitted the figures to an 
expert of the General Electric Company who reported that 
the estimate was excessive, and by basing his calculations 
on average, and not in maximum resistance, he reduced the 
cost of installation to $6,000,000. Even this was three times 
the cost of compressed air plant, and the operating expenses 
were double. 

These estimates have led to a discussion in the “ Street Rail¬ 
way Review ” and in the u Street Railway Gazette,” and space 
cannot be occupied here with a repetition of the arguments 
on either side, but this fact is certain, that both in installa¬ 
tion and in operation, compressed air is far more economical 
than electricity, and other things equal should be entitled to 
a preference. If other things are not equal, and if the dif¬ 
ferences are overwhelmingly in favor of compressed air, then 
air is left without a single competitor. That this is the case 
can be readily demonstrated. 

Compressed Air. 

In 1879 the writer was called upon to investigate and re¬ 
port upon five compressed air motors that had been con¬ 
structed on the plans of Robert Hardie, and run upon the 
Second Avenue Surface Railroad in New York. The tests 
were entirely satisfactory, and the report favorable. The 
consumption of free air per mile-run being less than 300 
cubic feet. A motor was then built at the Baldwin works, 
in Philadelphia, on the plans and under the supervision of 
Mr. Hardie, and was tested on the Second Avenue Elevated 
Railroad. It ran from Harlem to South Ferry with a regu- 


n 


lar train on schedule time, making 23 stops. It was run by 
an engineer taken from one of the steam-locomotives who 
had never before handled the motor. The master mechanic, 
chief engineer, and several other officers of the road wit¬ 
nessed the test and certified to the results, and these certifi¬ 
cates, which are of the strongest character, can be seen by 
any one interested. The engine not only made the trip to 
South Ferry but had a reserve of air enough to run it back 
to the shop. The general manager declined to give a certifi¬ 
cate of the result of the tests, and it was suspected that the 
reason was an apprehension that the certificate might be 
published in the papers and cause trouble with the direc¬ 
tors, who would be compelled by popular clamor to throw 
away their locomotives and change their system, and they 
were not ready for it. 

On the surface-road the company was willing, it was said, 
to make a contract to run the road with any company who 
would equip it with air-motors, but the parties interested 
had neither capital nor business capacity and nothing was 
done. A magnificent mechanical success proved a financial 
failure from the antagonism of vested capital opposing a 
change of system which involved expense. In Philadelphia 
the presidents of city railroads refused to consider a proposi¬ 
tion to use compressed air on the ground that any car run¬ 
ning on the street without horses would frighten teams and 
cause suits for damages. Public opinion had not then been 
educated to desire or permit a better system than horse¬ 
power. 

The field for compressed air has been greatly extended by 
the discovery in Europe of a process for manufacturing res¬ 
ervoirs without a rivet, joint, or weld, from which leakage of 
air at any pressure short of rupture is impossible. These res¬ 
ervoirs are tested to 3,500 pounds per square inch without 
reaching the elastic limit, and are perfectly safe under 2,000 


12 


pounds pressure, while it is difficult to make riveted reser¬ 
voirs tight under 600 pounds. With 2,000 pounds pressure 
there is no difficulty in providing reservoir capacity sufficient 
to run a train fifty miles with one charge of air. This may 
seem absurd to those who are ignorant of the properties and 
capabilities of air, who have never investigated, or who have 
not sufficient intelligence, or have too much prejudice to 
yield to evidence, but conviction will he sure to follow in¬ 
telligent investigation. It must be expected that the intro¬ 
duction of compressed air will be resisted by those who are 
interested in the trolley and other systems, but the law of 
the survival of the fittest must in the end be vindicated, and 
the sooner the change is made the smaller will be the losses in 
the transition. 

The cost of high pressures is much less than is generally 
supposed. An 8-ton motor will run 12 miles on 3,600 cubic 
feet of free air compressed to 500 pounds per square inch, 
and to start cars at intervals of one minute will require 
1,080 horse-power at the compressors, but to increase this 
pressure to 1,000 pounds would require only 180 horse¬ 
power in addition, or one-sixth more, and the whole cost for 
fuel would be less than one cent per mile-run. 

If ammonia engines should be used with the compressors, 
on the Campbell engine principle, it is not an unreasonable 
supposition that this fuel cost may be reduced one-half. 

I am quite sure that whatever may be the practice of 
others, you will investigate and decide all questions fairly 
on their merits. Ignorance is dense and general in regard 
to compressed air, and full investigation is necessary before 
a reliable opinion can be reached. 

But the solution of the problem of rapid transit in New 
York does not depend solely upon the motive power to be 
employed. The question of capacity, and the ability to carry 
with comfort the number of passengers demanding transpor- 


13 


tation is one of vital importance, and one upon which very 
erroneous ideas have been entertained, even by those who 
from official position, or by connection with transportation 
interests, might be supposed to be familiar with the subject. 
The assertion that beyond certain moderate limits the num¬ 
ber of passengers carried per hour cannot be increased by 
increasing the weight of engines and number of cars when 
propelled by gravity adhesion engines, and that an increase 
of speed, so far from increasing the number of passengers 
per hour, actually and rapidly reduces the number, is re¬ 
ceived with incredulity and to some appears absurd, yet that 
such is the fact can be readily demonstrated. 

An article by Mr. Lewis Heilprin, in the “ Engineering 
Magazine 55 of July, 1892, is probably the most practical and 
intelligent explanation of the requirements for rapid transit 
in the City of New York, that has been given to the public. 

This article recognizes, what others generally have over¬ 
looked, viz : the importance of maximum seating capacity 
per train, and the fact that the maximum carrying capacity 
per hour is measured by seats per train and trains per hour, 
passing any given point, and is entirely uninfluenced by the 
speed. Increased speed enables a smaller number of cars to 
accommodate a given volume of business, but does not in¬ 
crease the volume itself. On the contrary increase of speed 
will diminish the volume. 

Mr. Heilprin estimates that the demands for transporta¬ 
tion in the near future, especially with increased facilities 
during the busy hours of the day, will require a carrying 
capacity of 150,000 passengers per hour in one direction. 
How many tracks of equal capacity to those now in use will 
this require ? 

The present five-car trains, with 48 seats per car, have a 
capacity of 240 per train. 

The actual intervals between trains, as determined by 


14 


count for one hour on the Third Avenue road at the busiest 
hour of the day, was 110 seconds, and the seating capacity 
per hour with this headway is 7,852. If the headway is 
reduced to ninety seconds the capacity will be increased to 
9,600, and if it were possible to average one minute, the 
maximum seating capacity per hour would be 14,400. 

It would appear to require 15 tracks in one direction, or 
30 lines of track for both directions, requiring 11 additional 
double-track lines beyond the capacity of the four lines now 
in operation. It may be possible, however, to reduce the 
total number of tracks required by using some of them dur¬ 
ing certain fixed hours in one direction and during other 
hours in the opposite direction. 

This calculation is moreover based on uniformity of dis¬ 
tribution, but the actual distribution at present is far from 
uniform between the four lines. While the Third Avenue 
has carried 13,200 in one hour, the Second Avenue has 
carried 2,304; the Sixth Avenue 5,568, and the Ninth 
Avenue 3,264. There is apparently no railroad in the world 
that can equal the Third Avenue, as now operated, in its 
capacity for accommodation. 

The want of facilities cannot be supplied by the construc¬ 
tion of more elevated lines, for all available routes appear to 
have been occupied. 

Can the capacity be increased by heavier engines, stronger 
structures, and longer trains ? 

Heavy engines with gravity adhesion and increased 
weight of trains will not give the required relief, as in¬ 
creased weight will increase delays in stopping and starting, 
and increased length of headway will reduce capacity per 
hour. 

A fair illustration of the capacity of a four-track line, 
worked with heavy engines of 92,594 pounds, or double the 
weight of the Third Auenue engines,is found in the Viaduct 


15 


line of Berlin. The maximum number of cars per train is 
10, the intervals 5 minutes, and the seating capacity of one 
line in one direction per hour is only 5,760. If the head¬ 
way could be reduced to 3 minutes, which is considered a 
possible maximum, the capacity would be increased to 9,600, 
which is only the capacity of the present light five-car trains 
on the New York Elevated Railroad with 90-second inter¬ 
vals. 

The London tunnel-trains, with heavy engines, carry 6 
cars with 3 minute headway, and have a capacity per hour 
of only 4,320 seats. The London and Northwestern 14 cars, 
with 4 minute intervals, has capacity per hour of 8,400 
seats. 

The Boston and Maine 8 cars, of 52 seats each, with 3 
minute intervals, has capacity of 8,320 seats. 

The Chicago Cable trains, 5 cars of 40 seats, at 2 minute 
intervals, have capacity per hour of 6,000 seats. 

If a standard railroad train of 10 cars, each car carrying 60 
passengers, should be dispatched from any city station at 10 
minute intervals, the capacity of the line at any speed would 
be but 6,000 per hour. 

A far greater capacity than these would be required to 
satisfy the transit demands of the city of New York. 

It is a mistake to suppose that increased weight of trains 
admits of higher speed than lighter trains. Of course, trans¬ 
continental trains must be heavy, for there are few trains per 
day with long intervals between stations. With 2J to 3 
stops per mile, as on the New York Elevated, the delays 
caused by heavy trains would be greatly increased and the 
capacity reduced, and very good reasons are given for the 
apparently paradoxical statement of Mr. Heilprin that an in¬ 
crease of speed on a city railroad from 20 miles per hour 
with 1 minute intervals, if such were possible, to 40 miles 
per hour, would reduce capacity from 15,000 to 6,000 in 
consequence of the increased headway required to avoid 


16 


collisions and the greater time lost in stopping, starting, and 
gaining speed. 

Even the speed of 20 miles per hour, which would be 
very moderate upon an ordinary railroad, is quite unattain¬ 
able upon a city line with frequent stops. Twenty miles 
per hour would be three minutes to a mile. If there were 
three stops to a mile and each stop one minute, the whole 
time would be used and no degree of speed could give a 20- 
mile average. Rapid transit is possible, therefore, only by 
providing separate tracks for through and local traffic. 

It may be shown that high speed with heavier engines, in¬ 
stead of increasing capacity, as some suppose, would actually 
reduce it. Fast trains must be kept at a much greater dis¬ 
tance apart, and at 40 miles per hour a safe interval between 
trains would not be less than 2J minutes, but this interval 
would pass but 24 trains in an hour, and if of present size 
the number of seated passengers would be but 5,760. 

For the reasons given it does not appear that ordinary lo¬ 
comotives with gravity adhesion can give the requisite ca¬ 
pacity without a great multiplication of tracks, and relief 
from excessively crowded cars is not to be expected unless 
some plan can be adopted by which a greater seating capac¬ 
ity per train can be secured, with shorter intervals between 
trains, and as a consequence more trains per hour. The 
only system that claims to fulfill these conditions is the 
Meigs ; the chief peculiarity of which is a grip adhesion 
controllable by the engineer and not dependent upon gravity. 
There is much prejudice against this system in the minds of 
those who have not given it intelligent and unbiased exam¬ 
ination, but those who have, are generally very favorably 
impressed. Gen. Starke, who examined it for the Massa¬ 
chusetts R. R. Commissioners and subjected it to the 
severest tests, reported strongly in its favor, and the distin¬ 
guished engineer and president of the Quaker City Railroad 
of Philadelphia, Mr. Charles W. Buchholz, having examined 


17 


the Meigs system in the interest of New York capitalist, used 
this language in his report: “I am forced to admit that 
“ after considerable study of the subject, and after long 
“ deliberation, I have been driven from the position of a 
“ thorough sceptic to a believer in the Meigs system within 
“ a limited scope. 

“ There is no question of the entire practicability of con- 
“ structing the road, and there would be no difficulty in 
“ operating it if locomotives of this new type can be built 
“ that will at all times perform their work with the same 
“ regularity as those now in use.” 

The only uncertain point in the opinion of Mr. Buchholz 
seems to have been the ability to construct locomotives that 
could be depended upon to do the work, but as a full-size 
locomotive with tender and passenger car were constructed 
and run for some years on an experimental track at East 
Cambridge, with a grade of 345 feet to the mile and curves 
,of‘ 50 feet radius, there does not seem to be any good reason 
for doubt. If one locomotive did actually do its work, any 
number of locomotives of the same type should perform as 
well. At all events, there is sufficient merit in the system 
to warrant a full examination before deciding upon rapid- 
transit plans in New York, and although the East Cam¬ 
bridge engine was run by steam, yet, if that is objectionable, 
there can be no serious difficulty in substituting compressed 
air, for the same volume of air and steam on a piston at 
the same pressure will give equal power of propulsion. 

The “ Herald ” report was not quite correct in the opinion 
that there was no necessity for a decision on the question of 
motive power until the subway approached completion It 
is possible that the power to be used may have some in¬ 
fluence on the form of section to be adopted in construction. 

H. Haupt, 
Consulting Engineer , 
Washington, D. C. 


2 


18 


RELATIVE COST OF STEAM, COMPRESSED 
AIR AND ELECTRICITY FOR THE 
OPERATION OF RAILROADS. 

By Herman Haupt, Consulting Engineer. 

There seems to be a general misapprehension in regard to 
the relative economy of electricity as a motive power for the 
propulsion of cars upon surface and elevated railroads, as 
compared with steam and compressed air. It has been pro¬ 
posed to use electricity for the operation of elevated rail¬ 
roads in Chicago and New York, and it was also proposed for 
an under-ground system for the latter city. 

Electricity has apparently been applied with success to 
the operation of street railways hauling one or two small 
cars, but the cost of equipping a railroad for hauling heavy 
trains long distances with stations at short intervals, as com¬ 
pared with steam or compressed air, becomes excessive?* 
and the cost of operation is much greater than with com¬ 
pressed air. 

The idea is generally entertained that heavy grades are 
more easily overcome by electricity, but a-moment’s reflection 
ought to satisfy any one that this is a fallacy, for it requires 
a fixed amount of power to overcome a given resistance, 
whatever motive power is used. 

Having been called upon recently to examine and report 
upon the relative cost of plants, and of operation for the new 
lines of elevated railroad proposed to be constructed in New 
York, the writer sought an introduction to the officers of the 
General Electric Company, by whom he was courteously 
received, and who very kindly furnished all the data re¬ 
quired for electrical installation. 

The problem submitted to them was : “ Given a double¬ 
track elevated railroad, twenty miles long, with trains simi¬ 
lar to present elevated trains, running at one-minute inter- 




19 


vals, and twenty miles per hour, or two hours for a round 
trip; how many power stations would be required for the 
operation of the line, where should the stations be located 
with reference to the terminals, what power would be re¬ 
quired at stations, and what the cost in detail of the instal¬ 
lation ? ” 

The answers, which were based on the actual experience 
and results of the Intramural Railroad at the World’s Fair, 
were as follows: The cars had two 4-wheeled trucks, and a 
150 horse-power electric motor was attached to each axle, 
making 600 horse-power for each electric motive power car, 
costing for each car so fitted, $10,000. The trains were 
made up of one such car and three trailers, and it was 
stated that the same power would be required to operate the 
elevated railroad trains. It was also stated that the horse¬ 
power at the motors would be less than that at the power 
stations by 35 per cent., the loss being 


From steam-engines to generators.10 per cent. 

Transmission along conductors.10 “ “ 

From conductors to car motors.15 “ “ 


As there would be 120 trains on the road at a time, there 
would probably be 100 using current at once, the balance 
making stops at stations, and if each train requires 600 
horse-power, there would have to be supplied at the motors 
60,000 horse-power; and allowing for the losses of 35 per 
cent, the steam engines at the power-house would have to 
develop over 92,000 horse-power. The cost of installation 
at the power-houses was given as $80 per horse-power, made 


up as follows: 

Steam-engines.$20.00 

Generators on dynamos.20.00 

Boilers.17.00 

Piping. 3.00 

Buildings. : .10.00 

Keal estate and incidentals . . . '.10.00 


Total . 


$80.00 













20 


Chas. H. Davis, in his hand-book of tables for electrical 
engineers, gives the cost per horse-power at $80 without 
buildings and real estate, which would increase the above to 
$100, but $80 was taken as the basis of the estimate. 

The power stations were to be two in number, located each 
five miles from the terminals, so that the current would not 
have to be transmitted to a greater distance than five miles, 
the loss being proportional to the distance. The conductors 
recommended were old iron, or steel rails, as being more 
economical than copper of equal conductivity. Six lines of 
these rails being required in the first mile from the power 
stations in both directions. 

It is estimated that the cost of installation, based on the 
above data, would be as follows: 


Rails for conductors.$250,000 

Laying, insulating, and copper connections. . ,. 150,000 

Outfit for 120 motors, at $10,000 each. 1,200,000 

92,000 horse-power at power-houses, $80 each. 7,360,000 


Total.$8,960,000 


The writer’s original estimate gave the amount as $9,600,- 
000, but upon reflection it did not seem as if sufficient allow¬ 
ance was made for trains stopping at stations and during 
that brief interval using no current. He now thinks 20 
trains out of 120 a fair allowance. As compared with steam 
and compressed air plant to perform the same service, the 
cost would be : 120 steam-locomotives at $5,000 each, $600,- 
000; 120 compressed air-motors and compressor plant, $1,- 
800,000. The compressor plant is taken at manufacturers’ 
estimates, and what they are willing to guarantee. 

It may be noted that 120 motors would not be sufficient 
for such a service, as there are always a number of engines 
in relays, in reserve, and undergoing repairs, but as electric 
motors cost double what steam and compressed air-engines 








21 


do, the comparison would be still more unfavorable to elec¬ 
tricity if the number was increased. 

The relative cost of fuel for operating is computable as 
follows: 

Elevated steam-locomotives consume about 40 pounds of 
anthracite coal per train mile, costing, say, $6 per ton in 
Chicago and $4 per ton in New York. 

Stationary engines for generating electricity or compress¬ 
ing air, consume about 2J pounds of bituminous coal per 
horse-power per hour, costing, say, $3 per ton in Chicago 
and $2.50 per ton in New York. 

The compressed-air locomotive tested on the New York 
Elevated Railroad in 1881, used 1,470 cubic feet of free air 
per train-mile, which was stored in the motor reservoirs at 
600 pounds pressure per square inch. The total quantity of 
air stored before beginning the trip was 18,400 cubic feet of 
free air, the reservoir capacity being 460 cubic feet and the 
pressure 40 atmospheres. 

The builders of air-compressing machinery are ready to 
contract for power plants to do this work, and will guarantee 
that the consumption of fuel shall not exceed a rate of 20 
pounds of bituminous coal per 1,470 cubic feet, compressed 
to 600 pounds per square inch. This is the equivalent of 
20 pounds of coal per train-mile for compressing the air. In 
addition to this it requires between 4 and 5 pounds of 
anthracite coal per train-mile to reheat the air as it is used 
on the motors. 

In a round trip of two hours, 120 trains will have covered 
4,800 miles; and we shall compare the cost of fuel in per¬ 
forming this amount of work by the different systems. 

Electricity—92,000 horse-power for 2 hours at lbs. per h. p. per 


hour. 230 tons. 

Steam—4,800 miles, at 40 lbs. per mile.96 tons. 


. . . OAA i f 20 lbs. bituminous coal . . 48 tons. 

Compressed air—4,800 miles, atj 5 i bs . ant hracite coal . . . . 12 tons. 




22 


At a cost of 

Electricity,230tons. -{IS&WS In Ne'wXrk. 

Steam > 96 to ”. at { 1:00 = 384.00 in New^York. 

Compressed air. . {t® toSs at $ 6:00 ^re.OO } = $216 -°° in Chica * a 
Compressed air. . 1 4aOo}= 168-00 in New York. 

The writer was much surprised at the result, for although 
he expected to find that electricity was much more costly 
than steam or compressed air, from previous investigations, 
he was not prepared for such a difference; and after reflec¬ 
tion he began to doubt the correctness of the figures fur¬ 
nished. It does not seem that it should require 600 horse¬ 
power to move an elevated train, although he is positive the 
statement was made by the officials of the General Electric 
Company. The steam locomotives of the Manhattan Rail¬ 
way weigh about 48,000 pounds, the cylinders are 12 by 16 
and the drivers 42 inches in diameter. As the steam-pressure 
carried does not exceed 140 pounds per square inch, the 
horse-power probably does not exceed 250, but he is also 
aware that these engines are worked to their full capacity 
in moving trains from station to station. It is not a case of 
urging the trains into speed and then running at an even 
pace, but a case of continual acceleration until the next 
station is reached, and this is frequently carried so far that 
the brake-valve is opened before the throttle is closed, to 
avail of even the short interval between opening the valve 
and the brakes taking effect to accelerate the speed and gain 
time.* Profiting by the experience of the Manhattan Com¬ 
pany, Chicago, and other places have built heavier struc¬ 
tures, which admits the use of heavier engines ; those on the 
Lake Street Railroad, for instance, weighing as much as 
60,000 pounds. It is safe to say, therefore, that 300 horse- 


* The Eames vacuum brake is used on these trains. 





23 


power per train would be a fair allowance, although the 
writer cannot understand why there should have been 600 
horse-power on the Intramural Railroad, unless it is that an 
electric motor works best when not taxed to its full capacity, 
or unless 600 horse-power at the electric motor only means 
300 horse-power at the rail. This seems likely, as an excess 
of power would slip the wheels. 

After a discussion of the subject with the editor of one of 
the technical magazines, who also doubted the accuracy of 
the figures, they were submitted to a prominent electrician 
of the General Electric Company for revision. That gentle¬ 
man reported that the estimate was excessive, inasmuch as 
it had been based on maximum instead of average resist¬ 
ances. He returned a revised estimate, based on average 
resistances, with an allowance of 9 per cent, for fluctuations, 
which gives 42,000 horse-power as all that was necessary at 
the power stations, and $6,000,000 as the total cost of in¬ 
stallation. As 42,000 horse-power at $80 per horse-power is 
only $3,600,000, the writer rather underestimated the cost of 
conductors, laying, etc. 

After deducting 35 per cent, for losses, there will only be 
27,300 horse-power available at the motors, or say an aver¬ 
age of 273 horse-power per train using current at once. It 
is difficult to understand how the maximum power can be 
600, the average 273 and the fluctuation 9 per cent.; but 
accepting the revised estimate of 42,000 horse-power, and six 
millions as the cost of installation, it will be seen that the 
latter is still many times greater than for steam or com¬ 
pressed air. 

The relative cost of fuel for operating in two hours as re¬ 
vised would be: 


Electricity (105 tons). 

Steam. 

Compressed air . . . 


In Chicago. 
. $315.00 
. 576.00 

. 216.00 


In New York. 
$262.50 
384.00 
168.00 





24 


The fuel used for operating the Intramural road was oil, 
and the writer is credibly informed that the average con¬ 
sumption during the six months of the Exposition was at 
the rate of an equivalent of 50 pounds of coal per train- 
mile. This would give 120 tons for 4,800 miles, which is 
rather more than above. 

The interest on the cost of installation is another item of 
the operating expenses affected, and ought to be considered 
in conjunction with the cost of fuel. It is for two hours at 6 
per cent, as follows, based on the supposition that the road is 
operated twenty-four hours per day : 


Electricity .... 

. . $6,000,000. 

Int. . . . 


Steam. 

. . 600,000. 

Int. . . . 


Compressed air. . . 

. . . 1,800,000. 

Int. . . . 



Making the combined expense for fuel and interest— 


In Chicago. 


Electricity.$397.20 

Steam. 584.22 

Compressed air. 240.66 


In New York. 
$344.75 
392.22 
192.66 


Compressed air cannot be considered as an experiment, 
although the evidence that comes of long-continued use is 
wanting. The writer and others can testify to the admir¬ 
able results obtained from the street-motor trials in New 
York. They answered every requirement of the service, 
proved to be economical, and no valid objection was ever 
raised against them. They could and did carry storage of 
air sufficient for trips of ten miles, so that trips of eight 
miles were well within their capacity. The capacity of the 
reservoirs was equivalent to 4,266 cubic feet of free air, and 
they used 290 cubic feet, equal to 22 pounds weight of air 
per mile on an average. The Mekarski system is in success¬ 
ful operation in France, although they use over 24 pounds 











25 


of air per mile,* and are clumsy in general design and ap¬ 
pearance. 

In 1881 a compressed-air locomotive was designed by 
Robert Hardie, and constructed at the Baldwin Locomotive 
Works, Philadelphia, under his supervision. It was tested 
the same year on the Manhattan Elevated Railway, with 
marvelous results. The tests were witnessed by a number 
of the officers of the road and others, who were enthusiastic 
in its praise, and some of whom gave written certificates of 
the performance. They are as follows : 

John A. Wallace, engineer, who operated the engine on the 
trial trips. 

E. B. Wetmore, who was train-master when the trials were 
made. He has since been superintendent and master me¬ 
chanic of the Suburban Elevated, New York, and of the 
Chicago & South Side Rapid Transit Company. 

Wm. S. Hughes, who was foreman of repair shops on the 
Manhattan, when the trials were made, and who is now 
master mechanic of a division of the New York and New 
England railroad, at Providence, R. I. 

Col. R. I. Sloan, formerly chief engineer of the Manhat¬ 
tan. Since chief engineer of the Chicago & South Side Rapid 
Transit, and now chief engineer of the Lake Street Elevated 
railroad. 

Chas. T. Parry, of the firm of Burnham, Parry, Williams 
& Company, Baldwin Locomotive Works, Philadelphia, and 
others. 

Too much space would be required to publish these cer¬ 
tificates in full, but they all express appreciation and ap¬ 
proval in strong terms. The question is naturally asked 

*A pamphlet recently published by the American Mekarski Company 
states that on one of the roads operated, 1,985,000 pounds of air was used 
to operate 82,250 miles, which gave “ HIM™ = 22 I pounds per mile.” 
This was an error of division. 



26 


why was the system not adopted if the tests were so satis¬ 
factory and there were no neutralizing disadvantages. 

It may be said briefly that the main causes of its abandon¬ 
ment were bad management, incapacity, and lack of finan¬ 
cial ability on one hand, and prejudice, incredulity, and in¬ 
difference on the other. 

The company organized to develop the system was com¬ 
posed of men who had no financial standing, and were in¬ 
capable of surmounting the usual obstacles which all pioneers 
have to meet. The principal of these objections was the 
fear that damages from scaring horses would be heavy, 
which has since proved to be groundless. The company had 
not the financial ability te equip and operate the first line 
of road, and no railroad company would adopt it without 
such a demonstration, although a magnificent success me¬ 
chanically. 

The Elevated Railroad Company not only declined to 
introduce it on their road, but the management declined 
even to give a statement of facts as to its operation on the 
road. It was strongly suspected that the reason for this was 
the fear that publicity given to such an official statement 
would bring the pressure of popular demand for its adop¬ 
tion, involving the expense of re-equipping the road with 
motive power ; though a change would obviously be a public 
benefit; besides effecting a great saving in the operating 
expenses. Of the latter fact, however, the management is 
still ignorant. It is a fact, strange as it may seem, that no 
official test or investigation was ever made to ascertain the 
cost of operation, which fact implies that no such informa¬ 
tion was wanted. There is no lack of testimony, how¬ 
ever, to show that the experimental engine fulfilled all the 
conditions and answered all the requirements of the tests 
so far as they went; in hauling trains over the road on 
schedule time; in making all the regular station stops to 


27 


pick up and set down passengers; in ease of handling and 
smoothness of operation, and in freedom from noise of ex¬ 
haust, gas, cinders, &c., as well as the fact that the car-brake 
equipment was operated from the engine as usual; that the 
length, breadth and height was the same as the steam- 
engines, that weight was from 6,000 to 8,000 pounds less 
than the steam-locomotives recently built for the same road ; 
that they can be recharged as quickly as the steam-locomo¬ 
tives take water; that the cost of fuel for operation is less 
than 50 per cent, of that of the stcam-locomotives; and that 
there never was any fault found or objections raised against 
it whatever. All these facts can be proved to the satisfac¬ 
tion of any one caring to investigate. It is safe to conclude, 
therefore, that the only difficulty was the one stated above. 

The recent report of the railroad commissioners of Massa¬ 
chusetts, presented February 7, 1894, in referring to the 
trolley system, states that during the year there has been 
“an increase of 214 miles of electric road” and .“over 
$25,000,000 of capital invested.” The report also says, “ It 
can and should be said without hesitation or qualification 
that the electric system has not shown or indicated any such 
margin of profit as to justify the expectation of more than 
ordinary and moderate returns on money legitimately in¬ 
vested in it. The idea which seems to have obtained some 
currency that the electric railway system is a bonanza of 
rare and inexhaustible weath is clearly a delusion, and has 
doubtless proved to some a snare. The absolute cost and 
expensiveness of the system, under the most conservative, 
able, and honest management are sufficient to tax its earn¬ 
ing capacity to its full limit. There is no margin for in¬ 
flated or fictitious capitalization. It presents no safe or in¬ 
viting field for speculative enterprise or manipulation, unless 
it be to the unscrupulous operators of an inside ring, who 
are willing to practice on the crudulity of a misinformed 


28 


public. Whenever there is reason to believe that water has 
been, or is about to be injected into the stock or bonds of an 
electric railway company, the only safe course is to let its 
securities severely alone.” 

In a recent letter from the electrical editor of a standard 
technical magazine, it is conceded that electricity cannot 
compete with compressed air for street motor purposes ; that 
the storage-battery is an ignis fatuus, and that expenditures 
in this direction will probably be discontinued; and that 
long interurban lines like those projected between New York 
and Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago, and Baltimore and 
Washington, are wild and visionary schemes. 

Where steam can be used directly in a motor, electricity 
generated by steam cannot be employed economically for 
car propulsion. This is not so with compressed air, as the 
reheating on the motor almost wholly restores the losses by 
compression and transmission. The great field for electricity 
is electric lighting, and perhaps electric heating. It may 
also be advantageously used for transmitting power long 
distances from water falls, although compressed air may 
here again be a successful competitor; but for the propul¬ 
sion of cars and trains on railroads, it must eventually give 
way to compressed air. 

Gas-motors have exploded and burned up. Cable lines 
can only be operated on long lines of straight track with 
advantage, and then only when there is a “ magnificent busi¬ 
ness.” Steam is intolerable, carbonic acid gas and am¬ 
monia are impracticable, and life is too short to wait for 
horses. It would seem, therefore, as if compressed air, which 
is growing in popular favor, remains head and shoulders 
above all its competitors; and the writer ventures the pre¬ 
diction that in a few years it will be in universal use for the 
operation of street railways. Why it has lain beneath and 
so near the surface so long is past the writer’s comprehension. 

Washington, D. C., March 23, 1894. 


29 


RELATIVE COST OF STEAM AND ELECTRICITY 
FOR THE OPERATION OF RAILWAYS. 


By W. E. Baker, General Manager, Columbian Intramural Railway. 


Having been shown the preceding article, in which the 
relative merits of compressed air, steam, and electricity for 
elevated railroads are discussed, I gladly avail myself of the 
opportunity to reply. 

While this article bears evidence of having been prepared 
with great care, there is in it the assumption of a condition 
in regard to the rate of speed which, in the absence of an 
explanation, is misleading and leads to manifest error in the 
conclusions drawn. 

As a result of practical experience with the only elevated 
electric railway operated on a large scale, I beg to submit 
the following, which I trust will be of interest to your 
readers : 

In the article referred to, while the writer does not himself 
take the position that he is fully cognizant of all the facts 
connected with the operation of an electric elevated road, the 
unfairness of the comparison from which his deductions are 
made, beeomes apparent when the problem thus submitted 
is carefully examined, and particularly the clause referring 
to the speed of the train, which is to be 20 miles an hour. 

The writer then proceeds to compare the cost of operating 
an electric road with trains making an average speed of 20 
miles an hour with the cost of operating a steam-road under 
present conditions, where the average speed is about 12 miles 
an hour, slightly less than this in New York and slightly 
more in Chicago, the stations in New York being about 




30 


1,725 feet apart and in Chicago about 2,000 feet, and it is 
plainly unfair to make the comparison on this basis. The 
comparison should be made either on the basis of 20 or 12 
miles per hour under the different methods of operation. As 
all the elevated roads which have been operated, or are now 
being operated, including both the steam and electric roads, 
have been operated at an average speed of about 12 miles 
an hour, it would seem better to make the comparison on 
this basis, as, if we attempt to compare the operation of 
roads at the speed of 20 miles an hour, we must assume the 
conditions for both cases. 

As a matter of fact it is practically, and at any rate com¬ 
mercially, impossible to operate an elevated road with trains 
of five cars and stations about one-third of a mile apart, at 
an average speed of 20 miles per hour, especially with the 
present conditions and limitations of brake mechanism, as a 
very short calculation will suffice to show. At a speed of 
12 miles per hour, and with stations one-third of a mile 
apart, it would be necessary to make three stops in a mile, 
averaging 17 seconds. This would leave for the three runs 
to be made in a mile 249 seconds, or an average of 83 
seconds for each run, 30 seconds of which would be used in 
retardation; leaving 53 seconds only in which to make the 
acceleration from a state of rest to a speed of about 25 miles 
per hour. At 20 miles per hour or 180 seconds to the mile, 
and with three stops, we have 129 seconds in which to make 
the three runs, or 43 seconds to each run. If we allow, as 
above, 30 seconds only in which to make the retardation, 
which is not enough, as we will have to retard from a much 
higher maximum speed, still we have only 13 seconds left in 
which to accelerate to a speed of, say 40 miles per hour, and 
this is plainly impossible, although the electric operation of 
trains will approximate this much nearer than steam has 
ever been able to do. 


31 


The attempt (in the article referred to) to make the "com¬ 
parison between steam trains operating at the rate of 12 
miles per hour and electric trains at 20 miles per hour, is 
the basis of the errors throughout the article. A calculation, 
which it is not necessary to enter into, will show that to 
make an approximation to the average speed of 20 miles an 
hour 600 horse-power will be found not sufficient to do the 
work; notwithstanding the author of the article under con¬ 
sideration expresses surprise that this amount of energy 
should be required to operate an electric train at a speed of 
20 miles per hour. When the speed of an electric train is 
reduced to that assumed for the steam train, 300 horse¬ 
power will be found abundantly sufficient. The horse¬ 
power of motors, for the purpose of comparison, should 
therefore be taken at 300 instead of 600, which will reduce 
the cost of the motor outfits to $6,000 each instead of 
$ 10 , 000 . 

Actual experience of the Intramural road, based on twelve 
days’ accurate readings and forty-six separate observations, 
shows that the average horse-power consumed per train was 
42 horse-power. As the stations on this road were only 
1,590 feet apart, as compared with the distances of 1,725 
feet and 2,000 feet above referred to ; and as the road was 
further complicated by 25 per cent, of curvature, which 
necessitated cutting down the speed of the trains in many 
cases after they had expended the power necessary to reach 
the maximum speed ; and as the average speed under these 
conditions on the Intramural road of a round trip of six and 
one-fourth miles was 10 miles per hour, the horse-power 
used there per train would be quite a sufficient amount for 
a speed of from one to two miles an hour more with stations 
father apart and with straight track. The accelerations se¬ 
cured on the Intramural road were superior to those ob¬ 
tained on any elevated road now being operated by steam ; 


32 


and it is no doubt true that no locomotives at present being 
operated on elevated roads, and light enough to have been 
used safely on the Intramural structure, could have made 
the speed on that road which was made by the motor cars. 

Therefore, instead of assuming that it will require 600 
horse-power to a train in the station, it is true only if the 
trains are to make 20 miles per hour, and not true as a 
basis of comparison. We know on the basis of the facts 
secured in actual practice, 50 horse-power average per train 
is sufficient, but to allow for the extra car in the train and 
for surplus power we will allow 75 horse-power as a basis 
of present comparison. 

It must be remembered that this horse-power was meas¬ 
ured at the station, and that no allowance need be made for 
loss in conductors or motors. 

The writer of the article makes an allowance of 20 trains 
out of 120 as the number stopping at stations and during 
that brief interval using no current. When it is remembered 
that it takes about 87 seconds from the starting of a train 
from one station to the starting of the same train at the sub¬ 
sequent station, and of this 87 seconds, 17 seconds are spent 
at the station and 32 seconds are spent with the power cut 
off and brake applied, being over 50 per cent, of the time 
spent during the total run, it will be seen that instead of 20 
trains using no current, a proper allowance out of the 120 
would be about 70 trains. 

It will also be noticed that it has been assumed that 120 
trains would make a round trip, giving intervals of one 
minute. 

In this case again the difference in rate of speed has been 
neglected ; as a matter of fact it would take 210 steam-trains 
to do this service, and assuming that the electric-trains would 
make the same speed, 200 electric-trains, for the reason that 
the electric-train does not have to stop as the steam-train 


33 


does for the purpose of raking ashes, building up fires, etc., 
which could not be less for each steam-train in a round trip 
than ten minutes. The cost of installation, based, therefore, 
on the above data would be about as follows : 


Conductors and feeder rails.$100,000 00 

Laying insulators and connections .. 50,000 00 

200 motor equipments @ $6,000 each. 1,200,000 00 

15,000 horse-power @ $80.00 . 1,200,000 00 


Total.$2,550,000 00 


But this is not all; comparing the locomotives and their 
effect on the track and structure with that of the motor cars, 
the saving in the construction will amount to at least 25 per 
cent, of the cost for the steam road. This will be about 
$40,000 per mile, or 20 miles at $40,000—$8,000,000.00. 
But this is not all; it is only fair to compare the two sys¬ 
tems completely and not fair to compare the light afforded 
passengers by smoky kerosene lamps with the brilliant light 
obtained on an electric road. The only light approximat¬ 
ing the electric light is the most improved system of gas- 
lighting for cars, which would cost about $250 per car, as 
against about $40 per car to install electric lights, effecting 
a further saving on 1,000 cars of $210,000 ; and without re¬ 
ferring to the saving of lighting stations and the coaling of 
water stations, we have as the investment to be compared 
with the steam a total of $1,540,000, as compared with 210 
compound steam-locomotives at $6,000 each—$1,260,000. 

Now, to make a comparison of the relative cost of fuel: 
We have, in a round trip of two hours, 210 trains covering 
about 8,000 miles ; and for electricity, 15,000 horse-power 
for two hours at 4 lbs. per horse-power hour=60 tons. 
Steam, 8,000 miles, at 40 lbs. per mile=160 tons. As an¬ 
thracite is used on the steam-trains, the price still further 


3 








34 


emphasizes the difference in operating expenses, which would 
be for : 

Electricity, 60 tons, at $2.50. 

Steam, 160 tons, c£^ 0rk 

It will be seen that under this estimate the difference be¬ 
tween the cost of construction of the two systems is so small 
that it is unnecessary to carry the discussion further, as the 
assumption of the different rate of speed vitiates throughout 
the former comparison. 

The above statement of saving refers to fuel only—there are 
other items. The saving of wages on the two hours of a full 
schedule would amount to $240 in faver of the electric road. 

The writer knows nothing about the reliability of the fig¬ 
ures given in reference to compressed air, as no experiment 
has been carried on in this direction on a large enough scale 
to demonstrate its availability, to say nothing of the expense. 

One of the common errors in regard to the electric-road is 
the endeavor to assume that an electric-road is to do much 
more work, in a much smoother and pleasanter manner, than 
the steam-road, and still at less expense. In one of the tech¬ 
nical magazines a statement was recently made that a loco¬ 
motive generates power at a far smaller first cost than any 
stationary steam-plant, on account of the stationary plaht 
costing from five to ten times as much per horse-power as the 
cost of a locomotive per horse-power. This statement, while 
correct in itself, neglects the underlying factors of the opera¬ 
tion of an electric-road where the steam-plant would certainly 
not be over 20 per cent, of the total maximum power required 
to operate the trains. In the same article referred to, the con¬ 
clusion is drawn that “Very small power units can certainly 
be operated more economically by distributing the power 
electrically from a central station. With large power units it 
is more economical to generate the power on the spot, just 


$150 00 
640 00 
960 00 





35 


where the dividing line is to be drawn will depend upon 
the circumstances in each particular case.” This state¬ 
ment ingeniously hides the truth. It is not the size of the 
power units which renders it more economical to generate 
the power electrically, but the number. Having a given 
amount of power to generate, it can be distributed more 
economically by the use of electric transmission when the 
units are smaller in size. Bearing in mind that the economy 
of the motive power is not the only reason for the applica¬ 
tion of electricity on elevated railways, that the saving in 
dust, noise, gas and other so-called sentimental reasons must 
also have great weight, it becomes evident that it only re¬ 
quires a careful, thorough and scientific investigation of the 
subject to enable one to predict that the time is already come 
for the operation of elevated railways by electric power. 


i 


RELATIVE COST OF STEAM, COMPRESSED AIR, 
AND ELECTRICITY FOR THE OPERA¬ 
TION OF RAILROADS. 


By General H. Haupt, C. E. 


I have received a copy of the “ Street Railway Review ” for 
April, and have read with much interest and some surprise 
the criticism of my article by General Manager W. E. Baker 
of the Intramural Railway. When I was consulted pro¬ 
fessionally in reference to the plans of construction and 
operation of the proposed new rapid-transit lines in New 
York city the question of motive power came up for con¬ 
sideration. There were good reasons for believing that cable 
was not suitable, but it was thought that either electricity or 
compressed air might be advantageously substituted for 
steam. 

I happened to be well-posted in regard to what had been 
accomplished with compressed air, and had sufficient data at 
hand to guide me in forming my conclusions relative thereto, 
but had to obtain from others most of my information re¬ 
garding electricity. I, therefore, sought what may be con¬ 
sidered the chief source of light on the subject, the General 
Electric Company, being favored with a personal introduc¬ 
tion to Capt. Eugene Griffin, the general manager. That 
gentleman received me courteously, and having stated to 
him the object of my visit, he requested me to await the 
arrival of Mr. W. E. Baker, who was familiar with every 
detail from his experience in connection with the Intramural 
Railway, and who could furnish reliable facts and figures. 
Mr. Baker met me by appointment three days later at the 
office of Mr. Henry Belden, New York city, and in the pres- 




ence of that gentleman made answer to written questions 
that were submitted to him, which answers were noted at 
the time, and furnished the data for the comparative esti¬ 
mate subsequently made. There was no disposition to pre¬ 
sent any other than a perfectly fair and impartial estimate, 
and if the comparison was unfavorable to electricity it was 
simply because the figures, which were not expected to lie, 
gave that result. 

I felt under great obligations to Mr. Baker, and do yet, for 
the valuable information furnished, and I am naturally sur¬ 
prised at some of the criticisms in his article, as the gentle¬ 
man seems to have forgotten the conditions of the problem 
presented to him. 

It must be remembered that the information sought was 
in connection with rapid transit in New York city. That it 
was proposed to construct two four-track elevated roads—one 
on each side of the city. That on each of these roads two 
of the tracks were to be used for rapid transit, with an 
average speed of 20 miles an hour, and few stops; and the 
others for local travel, low-average speed, and many stops. 
It was scarcely necessary to enter into an argument to prove 
the self-evident proposition that 20 miles an hour, with 
three stops per mile, was impracticable, and the chief force 
of the article in question is directed against this assumed 
and purely imaginary condition. 

If Mr. Baker will reflect he must perceive that the cost of 
equipping and operating a line of road, where-the stations 
are far enough apart to admit of an average speed of 20 
miles an hour, will be less than where they are so close as to 
limit the speed to 12 miles an hour, hence he cannot con¬ 
sistently complain that the comparison was unfair. It is 
surprising that he should have overlooked this fact, as well 
as have forgotten the conditions of the problem presented and 
discussed. He seemed to understand it during our inter- 


38 


view in Mr. Belden’s office, when he furnished the data re¬ 
ferred to. He then did state in the presence of Mr. Belden 
that “ the same power would be required to operate Man¬ 
hattan trains as was used at the Intramural, which was 600 
horse-power, and the cost of equipping each train would be 
$10,000.” He also stated that “the same power would 
operate the proposed new line.” Now he states that careful 
tests made in the Intramural power-house gave 42 horse¬ 
power per train. Allowing for the 35 per cent, loss between 
power-house and trains, this leaves only 27 horse-power per 
train. Yet he allows “75 horse-power as a basis of present 
comparison.” I have information from a reliable source that 
indicator and dynamometer tests made on the Manhattan 
with an 11x16 inch cylinder engine gave an average of 185 
horse-power for all the time the engine was under steam, 
which I ha ye reason to believe is considerably more than 50 
per cent, of the total time of the trip. Here again Mr. Baker 
seems to be badly mixed, for in one part of his article he 
gives the average time between stations as 100 seconds—53 
under steam, 30 coming to rest, and 17 standing in station. 
In another part he give it as 87 seconds—38 under steam, 
32 coming to rest, and 17 standing in station. This was for 
the purpose of showing that my allowance of 20 trains out 
of 120, “ using no current,” was not sufficient. Considering 
that his figures tally so badly, and that my allowance was 
made for a road with long intervals between stations, it is 
probably nearer the truth than he tries to show, and, any¬ 
how, it only affects my original estimate, which w T as already 
subjected to revision by the General Electric Company. 

It is strange, in view of all the facts presented and after 
the statements made by Mr. Baker during our New York in¬ 
terview, that now, as if the subject were new to him, he should 
profess to believe that I intended the proposed line to be 
operated at 20 miles per hour with three stops per mile; and 


39 


and with this as a text write a two-page article. How can 
he reconcile his statements then made with the following 
in his article ? “A calculation, which it is not necessary 
to enter into, will show that to make an approximation to 
the average'speed of 20 miles an hour, 600 horse-power will 
be found not sufficient to do the work.” Of course not, and 
yet further on we read, “ 600 horse-power ” * * * “ is 

true only if the trains are to make 20 miles an hour,” as if 
remembering his statements at the New York interview. 

Being anxious to get at the facts and the truth, and to 
eliminate all possible errors and misunderstandings, my 
original estimate deduced from Mr. Baker’s figures was sub¬ 
mitted, as stated in my article, to the General Electric Com¬ 
pany for revision. They placed the matter in the hands of 
one of their experts (Mr. Blood, if I remember correctly) who 
cut down the horse-power over 50 per cent, and put the cost 
of installation at 6,000,000 dollars. There could have been 
no misunderstanding on his part as to the trains making 
three stops per mile, for he did not enter into any calcula¬ 
tion to show that “ 600 horse-power would not be sufficient,” 
but stated that my estimate was “ excessive,” being based on 
maximum, instead of average resistances. I accepted his 
explanation, and his revised estimate of 42,000 horse-power 
and 6,000,000 dollars; but in view of the self-evident fact 
that it costs less to equip and operate a line of road with 
stations at long intervals than one with stations at short in¬ 
tervals, it is very much at variance with the final estimate 
given in Mr. Baker’s article of 15,000 horse-power and 
2,550,000 dollars, on the supposition that stations would 
average three per mile. 

There are some who believe that the resistance of trains is 
proportional to the cube of the speed. This is contrary to 
all experience and very far indeed from the truth. I can 


40 


only advise those holding such belief to get better posted be¬ 
fore committing themselves to such rash statements. 

One thing appears self evident, that a given amount of 
power will overcome the same resistance, whether the agent, 
be steam, compressed air, electricity, or any other power, not¬ 
withstanding Mr. Baker’s assertion that “ the accelerations 
secured on the Intramural were superior to those obtained 
on any elevated road now being operated by steam.” If 
such was the case, it could only have been because of the 
600 horse-power with which the trains were equipped, and 
as seen from the ground there was a frightful amount of 
“ sparking ” as the trains started. 

Mr. Baker goes on to say that 210 trains would be required 
instead of 120 to operate the proposed road. This is pos¬ 
sibly so. I stated 120 trains would be in operation at one 
time, making 4,800 miles in two hours, on the assumption 
that they were one minute apart, and making an average 
speed of 20 miles an hour. This is probably closer than 
they could be run in practice, and was intended as an ex¬ 
treme case for purposes of safe calculation. Mr. Baker 
evidently overlooked my statement that, “ It may be noted 
that 120 motors would not be sufficient for such a service, 
as, there are always a number of engines in relays, in reserve, 
and undergoing repairs.” By what stretch of imagination 
does he manage to get all the 210 trains running at once, 
under the above conditions, so as to cover 8,000 miles in 
two hours ? Yet he uses this as a basis for figuring the coal 
consumption of the steam-engines. A revision of his fig¬ 
ures will show him that I put the number of miles correctly 
at 4,800 in two hours. 

Following this is an assertion that 8,000,000 dollars would 
be saved in the construction of the road. This must be a 
typographical error for 20x40,000=$800,000. The wisdom, 
or even possibility, of saving this amount is doubtful, in a 


41 


structure that is to last for all time. The cost of maintain¬ 
ing the roadway and track of the Intramural during the six 
months of the Fair was $4,281.28. This seems a good deal 
for a new track and roadway, and is doubtless due to the 
flimsy construction which he advocates. 

The subject of compressed air is dismissed with the re¬ 
mark, “ No experiment has been carried on in this direction 
on a large enough scale to demonstrate its availability, to 
say nothing of the expense.” 

If one air-motor accomplished all that was stated in my 
article, it is fair to assume that any number could be built 
like it, and it is even fair to assume that it may be im¬ 
proved upon. To prove that the motor referred to did 
accomplish all that was stated, the most unexceptionable 
testimonials can be exhibited. The record of air consump¬ 
tion furnishes all necessary data as to expense of opera¬ 
tion, and parties are ready to quote prices for the equipment 
of motors and air-compressing plant. Good reasons have 
already been given why compressed air has not come more 
into use, and why the above successes were not followed 
up. To these I would add, that millions of invested capital 
usually block the way effectually against the introduction of 
improvements that will threaten dividends, even with a 
prospect of increased dividends in the near future, a change 
that requires present expenditures, is resisted. The Trac¬ 
tion Company of Philadelphia, killed the elevated road 
there. The West End Company in Boston did the same; 
Tammany and Manhattan have closed New York against 
rapid transit efforts. Is it necessary to explain further why . 
compressed air has not been universally adopted ? Every¬ 
where somebody’s interests have placed obstructions on the 
track to block the wheels of progress. 

Herman Haupt, C. E. 


Washington, D. C., May 5, 1894. 


42 


[Railroad Gazette, Friday, July 27, 1894.] 

Electric Cars to Use Pintsch Gas. 

The Columbus Central Railway Company, of Columbus, 
Ohio, has closed a contract for the construction of Pintsch 
works to equip and light its street-cars with this light. 
This is an electric trolley road and the Pintsch light is used 
because of its more steady and reliable illumination, and it 
is estimated will cost but half as much as electric light from 
the power current. 















